US v. Kevin Lamont Walker
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999572204-2] Originating case number: 4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Walker. [15-6503]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)
August 10, 2015
September 28, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court’s marginal
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
We have reviewed the record
and conclude that Walker’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)”
motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion.
States v. McRae, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4190665 at *5-*6 (4th
Cir. July 13, 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,
531-32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b)
motion from an unauthorized successive habeas corpus motion).
Therefore, we conclude that Walker is not required to obtain a
See Mcrae, 2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6.
However, in the
absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny Walker’s motion to expedite the appeal
and affirm the district court’s order.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid in the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?